Haggard does about face: admits some indiscretions
The Washington Post says that acting senior pastor for Haggard’s megachurch, Ross Parsley, “told KKTV-TV of Colorado Springs that Haggard admitted that some of the accusations were true, but Parsley did not elaborate.” The accusations were that Haggard had sex monthly with this male prostitute and sometimes used drugs. What the hell does it mean when you say some of that is true? Does this mean he didn’t have sex monthly but every two months and that he rarely used drugs? Does it mean the sex charges were true but the drug charges are false? Or perhaps that the drug charges are true but the sex charges are false? In this case “some” of the accusations being true are still a very major problem.
KKTV has this headline for the story. It says: “Church Leader Says Haggard Admits to Some Indiscretions.” And the introline says: “A sudden about-face in the scandal facing New Life Church’s high-profile pastor, Ted Haggard.” Here is what the article says: “After Pastor Ted Haggard went public Wednesday night denying allegations of a homosexual affair, senior church officials told KKTV 11 News Thursday evening, Pastor Ted Haggard has admitted to some of the claims made by a former male escort. The church's Acting Senior Pastor, Ross Parsley, tells KKTV 11 News that Pastor Haggard has admitted to some of the indiscretions claimed by Mike Jones, but not all of them.”
There is video footage confirming this. In this Parsley says he does not have all the details but that he knows that there has been admission of “some of the indiscretions” but not all of them. He also says that the committee of fundamentalist ministers “are working with Pastor Ted and his family to investigate what happened ”. So the committee set up to investigate is "working with" the accused. Convenient. Parlsey also says, regarding the church members “everybody is 100 percent for him (Haggard)”. He says “we will pull together like a family”.
My best guess at the moment is that Haggard’s confession to some things, and denial of others, will be accepted as true. After all he confessed. So whether he is lying about somethings, as he initially lied about all of it, will not be seriously investigated by the church. They will offer him “counseling” and he will repent. Afte some period of time out of the pulpit he will come back and will get a standing ovation when he does. The raw film footage with Parsley seems to indicate to me that the church is anxious to find a way to get this over with. Haggard may well confess to having sex with the man but will claim Jesus changed him and that change is possible. Yeah, Right! I believe you.
The fact remains that if one wishes to bamboozle the fundamentalists it is a relatively easy thing to do. If the evidence is only mildly convincing blame it on the devil who is producing false accusations to tear down your ministry. The evangelicals will eat that up. In fact they may even up their donations. If the evidence is overwhelming just cry a bit and cry out “I have sinned against God” and then talk about how you have repented and Jesus forgave you.
The fact is that fundamentalists are not a bright lot. This sort of fraud just wins them over. Consider Jimmy Swaggart caught quite literally with a really sleazy hooker. According to accounts at the time he was trying to convince her to bring her daughter into the arrangement though she was quite underage. In Swaggart’s case he couldn’t repudiate the evidence. So he confessed. It didn’t take long before he was back preaching and going after gays for their sinful sexual lifestyle.Ah, the pot preaching to the kettle.
Peter Popoff is one of those evangelists who cons people out of money. He was caught in a major deception as I’ve outlined here. He was exposed nationally and the evidence was absolutely convincing. He dropped out of sight for a while and is now back raking in the money from the faithful.
Remember Rev. Jim Bakker, whose Christian empire Jerry Falwell tried to take over. Bakker was caught. He was not only having it on with a female secretary but by several accounts he was also having it on with some of the young men in his steam room. He cried, went to prison for fraud on unrelated charges, and is back in the pulpit.
As I said the fundamentalist is easy for the unscrupulous to manipulate since they are so irrational. They have a specific conclusion and life must be forced to fit it. As long as you say things that fit their predetermined ideas they will believe you. This is why it so easy for nutcases to invent entirely bogus stories about Satanic sacrifices taking place by the thousands across America and have the fundies throw large amounts of cash at the story teller. Over and over the fundamentalists get conned because they are mentally prepared to be conned.They yearn to be conned. They cry out for deceit the way a masochists cries out for the lash.
Now if I had to lay odds I would say the sex part is what Haggard admitted to not the drugs. First, it is not a crime, in spite of the best efforts of fundamentalists to the contrary. That alone makes it the lesser of two evils. It keeps the police out basically. And I suspect that he figures the prostitute can prove they knew were involved in some way. By the way this does not mean the prostitute actually has the voice mail messages. His claim could have been a bluff which forced Haggard to admit their involvement.
And this goes brings us to the obsession fundamentalists have with "sexual sin". They are absolutely out of their minds on sex. It is consumes them. My experience with these people is that they are obsessed with the very issues most likely to involve themselves. And certainly in case after case this turned out true. I am convinced that religious maniacs become most obsessed with the sins of others when the sin involved is one they fear most in themselves.